First Alleged Benchmark Results of Intel Core i “Haswell” Processor Hit the Web.

Intel Corp.’s next-generation Core i-series “Haswell” microprocessors are half a year away, but the first test results of what is claimed to be an engineering sample have already emerged. The chip has been allegedly tested in a set of benchmarks popular among overclockers and appears to be a tad faster than the Core i7-3770K at the same clock-speed.

OClab.ru, a Russian web-site dedicated to overclocking, has published what it claims to be the first test results of an engineering sample of quad-core Intel Haswell processor clocked at 2.80GHz. The chip was tested in SuperPi 1M&32M, PiFast, wPrime 32M&1024M on an unknown mainboard under Microsoft Windows 7 64-bit operating system. The obtained benchmark results could not be verified and it is unknown whether they are accurate.

As it appears based on the findings of the enthusiasts, Haswell is slightly slower than Ivy Bridge on the same clock-speed in single-threaded SuperPi 1M, but is noticeably faster (11 minutes 27.505 seconds) compared to its predecessor (11 minutes 49.094 seconds) in long SuperPi 32M.

In multi-threaded PiFast benchmark Intel Haswell (24.01 seconds) reportedly again managed to leave Ivy Bridge (25.5 seconds) behind while operating at the same clock-speed of 2.80GHz.

In wPrime 32M the forthcoming Haswell chip showed better (13.86 seconds) results than the down-clocked Ivy Bridge chip (13.97 seconds); the results in longer wPrime 1024M benchmark were predictable: Haswell chip managed to finish the job in 431.171 seconds, less than a second faster than the Core i7-3770K at 2.8GHz.

The assumed performance difference between Intel Core “Haswell” and Intel Core “Ivy Bridge” processors at 2.80GHz can be logically explained knowing certain peculiarities of Haswell micro-architecture, which is better optimized for multi-threaded applications. Unfortunately, it still remains to be seen what benefits Haswell will have in real-world applications.

Preview

2.

This is probably a C stepping engineering sample. Ran at 2.8 Ghz to filter out any instability that might still exist in the design...stuff is more stable at slower clock speeds. Engineering sample by itself doesn't mean much...there are engineering samples from A stepping all the way through the PRQ (production) stepping.

Haswell's bomb-dropper is graphics performance though. That's where it will gut AMD's precious APU business (which I don't even think was profitable in Q4).

Preview

2. Trinity APU is nearly 2x faster in performance than HD4000. By extension no desktop Haswell Core i3/i5/i7 parts will even come close to matching AMD's Richland APUs. This is even more true since the space in which AMD's APUs compete is sub-$125 level where i3s always ship with gimped Intel graphics (not even HD4000).

3. True successor to Richland APU aimed to compete against Haswell is Kaveri and that should launch by Q4 2013 with GCN GPU, unlike VLIW in Richland. If you want to compare apples-to-apples, then we'll be discussing Kaveri APU vs. Intel's Haswell. You are in denial if you think Haswell's GT2-3 performance will be anywhere near Kaveri's.

4. Did you forget that performance is just 1 part of the equation? Intel's graphics driver stability/quality or timeliness of their updates aren't up to par to NV/AMD industry standards.

Preview

AMD GPU is all but certain to best Intel's. Intel's CPU is all but certain to best AMD's. However, we are very quickly approaching a time when both might be regarded as "good enough" for the vast majority of users. Does the argument then move to the areas of "power envelope" and "price"?. And how long before ARM designs are on performance parity?. Come 2015, process node will not be enough for continued Intel dominance . I'm looking forward to the APU wars in 2015 and beyond.

Preview

63jax, you really ought to just come out and tell people what you really think instead of bottling up all that pent up aggression. Don't be afraid to express your feelings. I mean, if you don't like the guy, just say so.

Preview

AnonymousGuy is showing some trolling traits such as using inflammatory language like "gut" and "precious". He also regularly brings up the theme of AMD's financial position off topic. It reminds me of someone who used to persistently troll here. He must also tone it down and make relevant points.

Preview

Well thats why you have the vote system, if its not logical content or merely irrelevant posts you just have to vote it down

Anyone can say they think AMD isn't worth their time or money etc. the problem with trolls who got banned was that they constantly and persistently engaged in provocative posting styles. They never stopped they just kept going. It spoils the thread. But they also went further with swearing and name calling.

AnonymousGuy shares his views and then may or may not follow up with a reply. His account is a bit old and I have checked many of his posts. He is just your regular guy who has a Intel favorable view.

That is completely ok, if you don't agree counter his post with a good post or just vote the poor post down.

Preview

I am well aware that this benchmark is miles away from the whole picture, considering the they chips are not on the market yet. But First thing I though of was oh hey look no significat perfocmance difference between the cpu generations. Yet intel will still sell tham at a premium because that is how they roll. Squeeze the customer in the wallet for what is becoming incresingly mediocre product offerings has been their modus operandi for years.

Preview

5.

I think my already 3 year old Core i5 750 @ 3.2Ghz machine would last for a long time. My 750 at 3.2ghz would do that wprime 32 in 11 secs. The new generation CPUs performance is not scaling as good as during the days of Pentium 4 to core 2 duo then 45nm quard and finally Nehalem core i7. From second generation Sandy Bridge CPUs onwards the performance gain is mainly due to the increased clock speeds. That means you can achieve almost similar performance of the latest Ivy bridge CPU on first generation Nehalem core by just overclocking to the same frequency or a few 100MHz higher. Yes those programs that are heavily optimized for the new Intel AVX instructions then you may see some boost but then again there is no compelling reasons to upgrade to the latest CPU to get that small boost in performance. For me it seems like upgrading the GPU makes good sense. All I have to do is overclock the CPU by 200mhz every time Intel releases a new generation.

Preview

Ok so that is highly unlikely but I would like to think Haswell will overclock much better than Ivy Bridge and with the GPU improvements we might have a decent chip as along as the improvements get utilised and adopted by programs like Adobe and maybe Handbrake??

Preview

7.

this wasn't a surprise given that fact the intel stated that haswell will be 10 to 15% better in overall performance on the cpu side compared to ivy bridge, but the gpu side should yield 30 to 40% more performance over ivy bridge, which would rank it slight above Llano gpu performance. With that said it will still be two generations behind amd apu gpu when richland comes out around the same time and 3 generations behind kaveri gpu when it debutes later this year.

Preview

You did say it's bad news for AMD because intels multi-threaded performance is improved, but you are forgetting the fact that AMD wasn't too bad at multi-threading either. in fact in most cases they're just as fast or faster thant competing intel products.
If these numbers are correct, there's hope for AMD to become competetive with intel but that's not the whole story. It's how much profitable their business is.